2017 | 1 | 131-145
Article title


Title variants
Languages of publication
The aim of the paper is to discuss different options for qualification of computer games into appropriate category of copyright. The qualification is essential due to considerable differences between various protection regimes which emphasizes practical aspect of the issue. Difficulty in classification of computer games results from their specific structure which consists of software (computer programme) and audiovisual presentations. Some of the possible options include qualification of computer games as software or audiovisual work but other solutions are also taken into account such as: unnamed work, multimedia work or a completely new category of work. Due to the absence of Polish jurisdiction in this matter and insufficient research body it was necessary for the author to reach for foreign experiences and doctrine.
Physical description
  • [1.]Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ. L 167/10 from 22/06/2001.
  • [2.]Directive of the Commission of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs, Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (codified version) OJ from 5.05.2009, L 111/16.
  • [3.]Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte of 9 September 1965 as amended.
  • [4.]The Act of 4 February 1994 on copyright and related rights, Journal of Laws from 1994 No. 24, item 83, the consolidated text, Journal of Laws from 2006 No. 90, item 631, as amended.
  • [1.]Barta J., Markiewicz R., Prawo autorskie i prawa pokrewne. Komentarz, J. Barta, R. Markiewicz (ed.), Wolters Kluwer SA, Warszawa 2011.
  • [2.]Barta J., Markiewicz R., Prawo autorskie, Wolters Kluwer SA, Warszawa 2010.
  • [3.]Błeszyński J., Konstrukcja praw do utworu zależnego, [in:] Krzysztof Lewandowski (ed.), Utwór audiowizualny. Zakres pojęcia i ochrony prawnej, WSUS, Poznań 2011.
  • [4.]Bullinger W., Czychowski C., Digitale Inhalte: Werk und/oder Software? - Ein Gedankenspiel am Beispiel von Computerspielen, GRUR 2011, C.H. Beck, Monachium 2011.
  • [5.]Fina S., Der Schutz von Computerprogrammen (Software) im österreichischen Urheberrecht [in:]Urheberrecht in der digitalen Wirtschaft, M. Fallenböck (ed.), Vienna 2005.
  • [6.]Flisak D., Prawo autorskie i prawa pokrewne. Komentarz, D. Flisak (ed.), Wolters Kluwer SA, Warszawa 2014.
  • [7.]Flisak D., Utwór multimedialny w prawie autorskim, Wolters Kluwer SA, Warszawa 2008.
  • [8.]Hemnes T.M.S., The adaptation of copyright law to video games, University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 131, No. 1, November 1982.
  • [9.]Loewenheim U., [in:] Urheberrecht. Kommentar, G. Schricker (ed.), C.H. Beck, Monachium 1999.
  • [10.]Matusiak I., Gra komputerowa jako przedmiot prawa autorskiego, Wolters Kluwer SA, Warszawa 2013.
  • [11.]Neclerio J. M.,. Mousley M. C., Copyright Law Implications in Video Games and Virtual Worlds, [in:] R. A. Dannenberg (ed.) Computer games and virtual worlds: A new frontier in Intellectual Property Law, American Bar Association, Chicago 2010.
  • [12.]Nowicka A., Prawnoautorska i patentowa ochrona programów komputerowych, Dom Wydawniczy ABC, Warszawa 1995.
  • [13.]Okoń Z., Prawo Internetu, P. Podrecki (ed.), Warszawa 2007.
  • [14.]Wojciechowska A., Autorskie prawa osobiste twórców dzieła audiowizualnego, Zakamycze, Kraków 1999.
  • [1.] (access 28 March 2016).
  • [2.] (access 28 March 2015).
  • [1.]The judgement in Puckman case, OLG Hamburg , GRUR 1983
  • [2.]The judgement in Super Mario III case, OLG Hamburg, GRUR 1990.
  • [3.]The judgement in Amiga-Club case, OLG Köln, GRUR 1992.
  • [4.]The judgement in Donkey Kong Junior I case, OLG Frankfurt am Mein, GRUR 1983.
  • [5.]The judgement in Parodius case OLG Frankfurt am Mein, GRURInt 1991.
  • [6.]The Judgement of the Italian Supreme Court of 3 September 2007, No. 33768, IIC 2009, No. 1.
  • [7.]The judgement in case M. Kramer Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. H. Andrews F.2d 421 (4th Cir. 1986).
  • [8.]The judgement in case Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc., 863 F. Supp. 2d 394 (D.N.J. 2012).
  • [9.]The judgement in case Midway Manufacturing Co. v. Strohon 564 F. Supp. 741 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
  • [10.]The judgement of TSUE (Court of Justice of the European Union) of 22 December 2010 in case C-393/09,, access 28.03.2016
Document Type
Publication order reference
YADDA identifier
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.